Possible strategy for the Ginger Group of the BC New Democrats

I want to suggest a possible strategy for the Ginger Group. They're a left-wing splinter of the BC New Democrats. They ran candidates in the leadership convention of 2009,* including (is this true?) Brian Fisher for president. There isn't much information on them on the Web, except a recent post by GingerGoodone, which states their programme. Its main points are:

1. Address the democratic deficit within the provincial NDP
2. Refocus on the issues that confront ordinary citizens, and provide a sense of agency and belonging for the alienated membership
3. Return the Party to its Socialist roots

I want to propose a strategy for achieving these aims, in particular under points 1 and 2. These particular aims have the special property that, if they are good for the party as a whole, then they ought to be good for the splinter group, too. By fulfilling these aims themselves (taking their own medicine), the Gingers ought to be able to attract new members, and eventually grow strong enough to force the same medicine on the party.

Is this strategy likely to work, in principle? Has any splinter group ever attempted it? (I'll follow up with a possible plan of execution, later.)

Hey Thomas, thanks for joining. I thought we could do a practice run on this policy statement. It looks like a good test case. We could maybe launch right in and discuss the issues (no need for up-front explanations of tools/processes).

So I created your position and I voted for you. What attracted me most is the economic policy. Here's the first thing I wanted to change: http://u.zelea.com:8080/v/w/Diff?b=3529&a=3539

What do you think? I'm not sure it's economically sound, but there's maybe more social justice to be gained from reducing income disparities (at both ends) than simply taxing the rich. I put in some numeric targets too, just to show we're serious. Is it an improvement, do you think?

Hi GG, You remind me that I have to get back to points 1 and 2, eventually. I'm surprised that I'm more interested in discussing 3. I wouldn't normally classify myself as a socialist. But I never addressed the question of incomes before. (It always just bothered me in an unspoken way.)

I presented income brackets (low and high limits) as though they were an alternative to progressive taxes. Then you mentioned salary scales as another alternative. But now I see that I was wrong. Income brackets are not actually an alternative. They are more like an *end* (an explicit limit to disparity) wheras progressive taxes (or salary scales) are more of a *means* toward that end. Is this roughly true?

One thing I like about setting income brackets as a goal is the clarity of it. It shows very clearly that we're taking the bull by the horns. It also gives the voters something solid to vote for. It will be a difficult thing to oppose in an election, I imagine - at least on the surface.

Another thing I like: having taken the bull by the horns, we are not required to actually wrestle it to the ground. Wrestling it to the ground would entail a methodological debate (what will and will not work) in the way of acheiving the goal. Instead of getting prematurely tangled up in all that, we can simply let the debaters run their own races, and step in at the end to crown the winner. Do you agree that could work?

And Thomas: Isn't this a good way to build consensus (or at least to get off on the right foot): We take what comes easy, and leave the rest for later? Or am I getting too far ahead? Will anyone take a stand against a policy of setting clear income brackets?

@GG - We're just learning how to use these tools/techniques, and we're still kind of clumsy with them! Sorry for the confusion. But our aim - aside from learning - is to help the Gingers. (Thomas may have more to add.)

@Thomas - I think I see my mistake (and it adds to the confusion). So I've now restored section A to the Gingers' original text, and added a new section on "Limits to income disparity". What do you think? Is this a good addition to the economic policy?

http://u.zelea.com:8080/v/w/Diff?b=3656&a=3658

OK. Let's put this issue aside and move on to another. I've added a new section, "No taxation without account":

I wrote:

We believe that it is wrong for a government to resort to tricks and subterfuge in order to hide the true burden of taxation from British Columbians. Not only ought British Columbians to be fully aware of the economic costs of direct and indirect taxes, but also of the social burdens and moral deficits of a government that profits from gambling, sales of liquor and other contraband, where these burdens fall disproportionately on the poorer and weaker members of society. etc.

This is less likely to make anyone angry. What do you think?

http://u.zelea.com:8080/v/w/Diff?b=3656&a=3679

I think you're right Thomas, there's something wrong with "moral deficits of a government". It sounds like a political attack on a governing party. Instead we could say "state". (But do most Canadians know that a province is technically a state?) Or maybe "revenue system" (that's what I chose). I also made other clarifications.

But I think we need to keep the "moral deficits". It's not merely a "moral question". It's plainly wrong to prey on defenceless people: moral deficits = costs falling disproportionately on the poorer and weaker.

Aside: One thing I learned in this thread is how attractive it is to take a moral line on issues. I've been thinking about that. I figure that politicians (per se) are usually forced to act on considerations of power, as opposed to what's right and wrong. Isn't that true? Otherwise their chances of holding office would be much reduced. So they tend to leave behind a moral vacuum. It could be this vacuum that's so attractive. If we (ordinary people) don't fill it, then who will?

http://u.zelea.com:8080/v/w/Diff?b=3681&a=3682#_1

I'm an outsider when it comes to parties. Speaking for myself, I don't have a good understanding of internal politics, power struggles, and so forth. On the other hand, I don't think our proposal depends much on that. I think it depends more on the perspective/approach of Ratbert and genstrike:

Ratbert wrote:

... wish the Gingers the greatest success in prying the levers of party power from the elitist suits and apparatchiks that deny the grassroots any sort of input into the decision-making process.

genstrike wrote:

Best of luck, but as a rule I tend to not support these "take back the NDP" initiatives, not because I think they're too left wing or going to hurt the NDP, but because I think they're doomed to failure. There have been similar initiatives in the past, and they have all been unsuccessful. I just don't see the NDP as having the intellectual or moral backbone to stand up to neoliberalism, and I think the "return to its socialist roots" shtick is played out and ignoring the history of the NDP. The Regina Manifesto was a dead letter at least by the time Tommy Douglas got elected, and the NDP hasn't been socialist since maybe the very early days of the CCF.

Honestly, I think what we need to be doing is focusing way more on building strong grassroots movements and radical bases than trying to influence the NDP from within.

That's basically our proposal, although we didn't explain it in detail. It's easier to demonstrate (I think), than to explain. But here's a general explanation. And here are some specific things that we are *not* proposing:

• We are *not* proposing to replace the official decision-making systems of the party, or of the Ginger Group. We expect you to continue voting on policy, delegates and so forth, exactly as you do now.
• We are *not* proposing to set any kind of preemptive agenda. Although our little group of outsiders (Thomas, Alex and I) have reached consensus in places (as in "No taxation without account"), we speak only for ourselves. It is not binding on anyone else. Anyone who joins in the discussion/drafting/voting may freely post a position that differs from it, and just as freely solicit votes in support of their own, separate consensus.

This second point is crucial. If you understand what I mean, then you'll also understand one of the positive aspects of our proposal. It's a practical reply to the arguments of Ratbert and genstrike:

• We *are* proposing to offer technical supports for "building strong grassroots movements and radical bases". Suppose that you have two disaffected and somewhat isolated members of the party, one in Campbell River, and one in the Okanagan Valley. Normally, they could not expect to have much substansive input into the party's platform. Nevertheless, they could join in this discussion thread and begin to collaborate (the two of them) on a new policy initiative for the party. They could do it right here in Babble, and do it today.

Did we demonstrate this aspect well enough, more or less? In turn, I wanted to ask: Has anyone seen this kind of thing before? Do you know of anyone who's already been down this road?

One thing I like about the Gingers is how they demonstrate their openess by taking a concrete proposal into a public discussion. We've been on the lookout for that kind of thing, because our tools depend on online forums (like Babble). You'd think it would be easy to find, but it's actually quite rare. So we're happy to help the Gingers.

I agree though, they have little chance of reforming the party from within. Their original plan cannot work. I think they were planning something like this:

1. Reform and democratize the NDP administration, *then*
2. Refocus on the issues of social justice that members care about

The problem is in step 1. Restructuring the administration is not within the power of the Gingers, and they are unlikely to succeed (just as you say). So they may never get to step 2. Instead, this would be a better plan:

1. Reform and democratize the Ginger Group, *by*
2. Refocusing on the issues of social justice that members care about

This is within their power. They could start executing this plan today. Steps 1 and 2 could be glued together using the tools that we're demonstrating in this thread. That would entail what you suggested in the previous thread: "building strong grassroots movements and radical bases." The effort would necessarily cut across the membership boundary, extending both inside and outside of the party/group. The end result would nevertheless include a reformed party administration (first you win the members, then you win the party). Still, it would have to start with the Gingers.

We might start with one of the other groups you mentioned. But we've been looking around, and we don't see any evidence that they have concrete proposals, or that they're open to discussing them online. Where can we find (for example) serious online discussion of a proposal to end or limit warfare? Or to further the cause of women? Or the Palestinians?